The Heritage Foundation's January 8 report proposes a suite of policies to encourage marriage and childbearing, from a government-backed "marriage bootcamp" that would pay participating couples $5,000 to expanded newborn trust accounts (NEST) and a new refundable FAM tax credit for married parents. The plan also calls for online age verification, more infertility research, and market-oriented reforms like zoning relaxation. Critics note past marriage programs had only modest success and that cash bonuses abroad have not reliably increased birth rates.
Heritage Proposal Would Pay Couples To Marry, Seed Baby Trusts, And Prioritize 'Family' In Federal Policy
Conservatives Want the Government To Pay Americans To Get Married and Have Kids
The Heritage Foundation's January 8 policy paper, "Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years," lays out an ambitious and controversial agenda to encourage marriage and childbearing through a mix of financial incentives, regulatory changes, and cultural campaigns.
Marriage Bootcamps, Weddings, and $5,000 Incentives
One headline-grabbing proposal would target cohabiting parents with radio and social-media ads inviting them to a government-backed "marriage bootcamp" run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in partnership with churches, foundations, and private donors. Couples who complete the program would participate in a communal wedding ceremony, be paired with a mentor couple, and receive a $5,000 payment on their wedding day as an explicit incentive to form and stabilize families.
Newborn Trusts and a Marital Child Credit
The paper recommends expanding so-called "Trump Accounts"—government-seeded savings for newborns—into New Early Starter Trust (NEST) accounts, each seeded with at least $2,500 at birth. Funds would become available when beneficiaries marry or turn 30, with tax-advantaged withdrawals for those who marry before age 30.
Another major proposal is a Family and Marriage (FAM) refundable tax credit reserved for married joint filers who share a child and meet minimum income thresholds. The credit would pay $4,418 in the birth year and for three subsequent years (rising to $5,521 for a third or later child), with an extra $2,000 per child under five for families with a stay-at-home parent.
Online Safety, Technology, and Cultural Measures
The report also advocates nationwide age verification for social media and online pornography and urges passage of the Kids Online Safety Act to require platforms to protect minors from a broad set of alleged harms. It flags concerns about emerging technologies such as sex robots, surrogacy practices, and artificial wombs.
Market-Friendly Reforms and Repurposed Federal Spending
Some recommendations align with classical liberal policies: welfare reform, repealing rent controls and easing stringent zoning rules, protecting gig work and independent contracting, criticizing overcredentialism, and allowing after-tax investments in flexible savings accounts with tax-exempt gains. However, the authors repeatedly argue for repurposing federal spending toward pronatalist goals rather than cutting it.
Examples include asking the National Institutes of Health to prioritize infertility research, expanding Title X coverage to include "restorative reproductive medicine," and extending Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) protections from 12 weeks to six months for new mothers.
Institutional Changes To Favor Married Parents
The Heritage paper proposes embedding family-policy objectives into federal grants, penalizing grant recipients that are judged to "discriminate" against marriage and families, and adding a mandatory "Family Impact Appendix" to major federal rules to identify ways regulations might affect marriage stability and childbearing. Taken together, these measures would reorient many federal programs and regulatory processes to prioritize married parents.
Critiques and Uncertainties
Scholars and policy analysts caution that government-backed marriage programs have produced only "modest" results in past evaluations and that direct cash bonuses have not reliably raised fertility in other countries that have tried them. Critics also warn about the civil liberties and practical implications of broad age verification requirements and the potential consequences of conditioning federal funding on narrow family-policy criteria.
What This Could Mean
If adopted, elements of the Heritage plan would combine tangible financial incentives with regulatory and cultural tools to encourage marriage and higher fertility—while raising questions about effectiveness, equity, and the role of government in private family decisions.
Help us improve.
